Dershowitz Is Insane

[playtime]

DEMOCRATS Seats Up in 2020.

Alabama: Doug Jones (Running) Current age: 64

Delaware: Chris Coons (Running) Current age: 54

Illinois: Dick Durbin (Intent unknown) Current age: 73

Massachusetts: Ed Markey (Running) Current age: 71

Michigan: Gary Peters (Intent unknown) Current age: 59

Minnesota: Tina Smith (Running) Current age: 60

New Hampshire: Jeanne Shaheen (Intent unknown) Current age: 71

New Jersey: Cory Booker (Intent Unknown) Current age: 48

New Mexico: Tom Udall (Running) Current age: 69

Oregon: Jeff Merkley (Intent unknown) Current age: 61

Rhode Island: Jack Reed (Intent unknown) Current age: 68

Virginia: Mark Warner (Intent unknown) Current age: 63

Republicans up for reelection in 2020:

Alaska: Dan Sullivan (Intent unknown) Current age: 53

Arizona: Martha McSally (Running) Current age: 52

Arkansas: Tom Cotton (Running) Current age: 40

Colorado: Cory Gardner (Running) Current age: 43

Georgia: David Perdue (Running) Current age: 68

Idaho: John Risch (Intent unknown) Current age: 74

Iowa: Joni Ernst (Running) Current age: 47

Kansas: Pat Roberts (Retiring) Current age: 81

Kentucky: Mitch McConnell (Running) Current age: 75

Louisiana: Bill Cassidy (Intent unknown) Current age: 60

Maine: Susan Collins (Running) Current age: 66

Mississippi: Cindy Hyde-Smith (Intent unknown) Current age: 59

Montana: Steve Daines (Intent unknown) Current age: 55

Nebraska: Ben Sasse (Intent unknown) Current age: 45

North Carolina: Thom Tillis (Running) Current age: 57

Oklahoma: Jim Inhofe (Intent unknown) Current age: 83

South Carolina: Lindsey Graham (Running) Current age: 63

South Dakota: Mike Rounds (Intent unknown) Current age: 63

Tennessee: Lamar Alexander (Retiring) Current age: 77

Texas: John Cornyn (Running) Current age: 65

West Virginia: Shelley Moore Capito (Intent unknown) Current age: 64

Wyoming: Mike Enzi (Intent unknown) Current age: 73


Here is the list.

The Republicans are almost all from Red States - which seats do the dems pick up?

They will for sure lose Alabama back to the Republicans
Probably also New Hampshire.

we'll see.... (D)s took back the house from (R)s in districts that weren't blue.

I laugh
When did you first start paying attention to politics, when the half colored boy ran?

1987 when my kid was born.

 

[toobfreak]

I used to respect Alan Dershowitz. Not any more.

I'm sure Al is just tore up over that, Jack.

He argued that a President can do pretty much ANYTHING to get himself re-elected, as long as he thinks it's for the good of the country.

Funny, I just watched him interviewed on TV Sunday morning and he VOCIFEROUSLY AND VEHEMENTLY DENIED ever saying that! That is just one of the latest lies being spun and promulgated by the hate-obsessed leftist tards spread out to idiots like you to repeat ad nauseum.

YOU"RE A LYING ******* IGNORANT JACKASS, so don't come here thinking it will ever go over unchallenged.

And I can see that, as usual, the entire troupe of the zombie braindead have signed on with you with their Winners, Thank Yous and Agrees. You're in good company.

 

[Zorro!]

No decent judge would ever issue a warrant based on a dress from something that might have happened 30 years ago. There's no provable chain of custody. For any knows the gal paid someone to wear it to a function that Trump might have attended in the last year. There's no way to prove when a skin cell could have been obtained. You're rooting for the gal because you hate Trump, but use your damn brain, the gal has no case.

.

Dershowitz would make very short work of that if some idiot prosecutor was dumb enough to try to charge a case like that. They found 3 female DNA samples on the dress. How did they get there?

For all anyone knows she loaned the dress to someone else, ya just never know. That's why no judge would ever issue a warrant for DNA base on that story. 25-30 years is a long time, DNA degrades over time.

.

this is a civil case, not a criminal one. the 'burden' is much lower & there is no beyond a reasonable doubt; only the preponderance of the evidence to be proven.

And? She still has to demonstrate financial harm.

.

nope. you are wrong.

Damages in a Defamation Case

fred goldman brought a wrongful death suit against OJ & won & had nothing to do with a financial hardship could occur because of ron goldman's murder.

HA! uber scum that dershowitz helped defend OJ 'cause the cash was great.

talk about money being the root of all evil.

Money is not the root of all evil.

 

[Zorro!]

they would prove whether donny - who claims to not know her at all - was in close contact with her. i am not saying it was him, but he can be sued & may just hafta give up some DNA. given his track record for the last 4 decades, is it that unreasonable to think he isn't completely innocent?

c'mon...

No decent judge would ever issue a warrant based on a dress from something that might have happened 30 years ago. There's no provable chain of custody. For any knows the gal paid someone to wear it to a function that Trump might have attended in the last year. There's no way to prove when a skin cell could have been obtained. You're rooting for the gal because you hate Trump, but use your damn brain, the gal has no case.

.

Dershowitz would make very short work of that if some idiot prosecutor was dumb enough to try to charge a case like that. They found 3 female DNA samples on the dress. How did they get there?

you either didn't bother to read the article or failed at comprehending it b4 replying.

it didn't say any of the samples were definitively female. it said of the four not eliminated
( others that were eliminated were the photo shoot people ) the lab report only said that one was definitively male. the other 3 didn't specify one way or the other.

She wore this dress to a photo-shoot AFTER the alleged assault? How did she get there? Walk down a crowded street, ride the bus, get into a cab that had transported how many people since the last time it was sanitized?

are you really that dumb or are you playing full tilt retard?

Name calling doesn't deal with these questions.

 

[Zorro!]

Supposedly, Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Burisma and Hunter Biden because he's concerned about corruption. Corruption exists in many countries. How many other corrupt countries has Trump expressed concern about? In fact, recently it was revealed that Trump wanted to repeal a prohibition on U.S. companies paying bribes because he believes that it puts the U.S. at a disadvantage. It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't give a damn about corruption, in Ukraine or anywhere else. He just wanted to get some dirt on Joe Biden, perhaps his biggest political rival. If you want to talk about corruption, there it is.

Like any American voter gives a damn if Ukraine investigates someone. The whole thing was a pathetic attempt to overturn a past election and strip the sitting President off the ballot in this election.

You don't get it. Trump trying to get Ukraine to investigate Biden wasn't because any American voters would care about the results. But ANY investigation would make Biden look bad, and give Trump a better chance of being re-elected. And no, the "whole thing" (I assume you mean impeachment) wasn't about overturning the last election. It was about a President abusing the power of his office in an attempt to ensure his re-election, which is what happened. But you know what? People that hate Trump vote, too.

all donny was interested in was the 'announcement' on CNN by zelinsky.

Oh, so you are mind-reading Trump again declaring his thoughts to be horrid, why, even so ghastly that he should be removed from office! Weird how that didn't sell to the Juryl

So, give me a link to this Fake News CNN announcement you are rambling on about.

not fake.

fact:

Trump Pressed Ukraine’s President to Act Out a Fake News Script, Live on CNN
Robert Mackey
October 23 2019, 8:05 p.m.
Before agreeing to release nearly $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine, President Donald Trump extorted a promise from his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to appear on American television and act out a script prepared for him by Trump’s aides, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, told the House impeachment inquiry [ * ] on Tuesday.

The scene a desperate Zelensky finally agreed to perform would have been the very definition of fake news: a dramatic announcement by the Ukrainian president, during a CNN interview, that he was opening criminal investigations on Joe Biden’s family and other Democrats.

The plot, which would have duped American voters into believing that there was some substance to a debunked conspiracy theory about Biden’s work in Ukraine as vice president, came very close to working.
Trump Wanted Ukraine’s President to Smear Biden on CNN

* pages 11 & 12 of ambassador's testimony under oath:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...ement/71cb2f887efc7eb76629/optimized/full.pdf




yer welcome for the education.

Did you read your link? It describes second hand, what Sondland told Taylor. Why in the hell, when they have Sondlands first hand testimony are your directing me to what someone else said, Sondland said he heard? This is the kind of silliness that we saw throughout this farce.

Secondly - This is NOT

"Before agreeing to release nearly $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine, President Donald Trump extorted a promise from his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to appear on American television and act out a script prepared for him by Trump’s aides, "

even claimed on pages 11 and 12 of your link, and this never even occurred. You do know that the aid was released with so such announcement? Apparently Sondland incorrectly inferred that the aid would be withheld without an investigation and and reported this to Taylor.

First - There is nothing wrong with insisting that concrete steps be taken to deal with rampant corruption before releasing US taxpayer funds to a foreign nation. Our aid is not an entitlement.

Secondly, Vondman's inference is clearly wrong as the aid was released without this announcement.

Thirdly, why the hell am I hearing about what Vondman inferred from Taylor when Vondman was deposed?

Fourthly, why in the hell are you guys trying to overturn a past election and change a future election, based on an incorrect inference by one guy, reported by another guy, when even if correct is neither a crime nor even unreasonable?

You're welcome for the education.

 

[Ray9]

Ask yourself this: Why has no one in the Democratic Party gone after Dershowitz for his many trips with Jeffrey Epstein on the Lolita Express? Was Dershowitz reading lawbooks while the group sex parties with Campfire girls were in full swing?

Could the answer be that Bill Clinton was on that plane too? Dershowitz knows Democrats stick together like glue so he is not afraid of being outed.

 

[OKTexas]

You have to be high, SKIN CELLS??????? Walk down any NY sidewalk and you could get skin cells form a thousand contributors. Some would likely be secondary transfer. Hell you can pick up skin cells in a damn taxi. Skin cells prove nothing.

.

they would prove whether donny - who claims to not know her at all - was in close contact with her. i am not saying it was him, but he can be sued & may just hafta give up some DNA. given his track record for the last 4 decades, is it that unreasonable to think he isn't completely innocent?

c'mon...

No decent judge would ever issue a warrant based on a dress from something that might have happened 30 years ago. There's no provable chain of custody. For any knows the gal paid someone to wear it to a function that Trump might have attended in the last year. There's no way to prove when a skin cell could have been obtained. You're rooting for the gal because you hate Trump, but use your damn brain, the gal has no case.

.

lol... for ****'s sake, kitty - show some dignity. she is suing him for defamation & it certainly can be determined if them thar skin cells were recent (like the 3 from the photo shoot) or aged. now - if they were mango colored, you might have a point - but apparently they aren't, so that means they could have been from years ago since donny wasn't the obsessive spray tan cretin back then; & that defamation suit isn't the first one in the pipeline.

summer zervos' lawsuit is still very much active, despite donny's efforts to delay.

Trump gets woman's suit delayed until NY top court weighs in

So how does she claim this classic he said, she said has harmed her? You know she has to demonstrate financial harm to even have standing, right?

.

nice try meow meow but uh - no she doesn't.

Damages in a Defamation Case

& zervos has phone records, so it's a little more like - what she said can be confirmed & what he said was a ******* lie.

Wasn't the gold digger on his TV show?? BTW do you have anything specific to NY?

.

 

[OKTexas]

No decent judge would ever issue a warrant based on a dress from something that might have happened 30 years ago. There's no provable chain of custody. For any knows the gal paid someone to wear it to a function that Trump might have attended in the last year. There's no way to prove when a skin cell could have been obtained. You're rooting for the gal because you hate Trump, but use your damn brain, the gal has no case.

.

Dershowitz would make very short work of that if some idiot prosecutor was dumb enough to try to charge a case like that. They found 3 female DNA samples on the dress. How did they get there?

For all anyone knows she loaned the dress to someone else, ya just never know. That's why no judge would ever issue a warrant for DNA base on that story. 25-30 years is a long time, DNA degrades over time.

.

this is a civil case, not a criminal one. the 'burden' is much lower & there is no beyond a reasonable doubt; only the preponderance of the evidence to be proven.

And? She still has to demonstrate financial harm.

.

nope. you are wrong.

Damages in a Defamation Case

fred goldman brought a wrongful death suit against OJ & won & had nothing to do with a financial hardship could occur because of ron goldman's murder.

HA! uber scum that dershowitz helped defend OJ 'cause the cash was great.

talk about money being the root of all evil.

Wow, another great commie IRRELEVANT DEFLECTION. Good job commie. LAMO

.

 

[OKTexas]

And the hildabitch defended a child rapist. I defended her for that, every defendant deserves the best defense they can get. That's how the system is supposed to work. Do you disagree?

.

I agree that every defendant should get the best defense possible. Unfortunately, that usually means the best defense that money can buy. I wonder how much pro bono work Dershowitz does? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, too.

Dershowitz said as far as he knew he wasn't being paid by the Trump defense team, but he said if he was, it would go the charity.

.

who paid rudy for all his investigations into ukraine?

What does that have to do with Dershowitz?

.

dershowitz defended donny in a shake down based on conspiracy... & it just all ties in.

And there will still be a bipartisan vote for NOT GUILTY. Chaps your ass doesn't it????????? ROFL

.

 

[OKTexas]

So I'm assuming you will be fine when a Democrat president withholds aid to other countries and tries to strong arm them into digging up dirt on his political rivals. Am I right?

No, but that is not what Trump did.

Would you be fine the next time the House is majority Republican impeaching a Democrat president without evidence...just hearsay? Careful, Obama was accused of much worse and the Republicans didn't impeach him because they couldn't prove the charges. Democrats don't seem to care about proof.

it is not hearsay. vindman was a first person witness in on that not so perfect call.

why won't donny let his 'men' testify? why wont he cough up any docs? why is he afraid?

& why was cippolone who bolton said was in on the shake down allowed to be counsel for donny? why was pam bondi- who took a cash buy off - to close down donny's university lawsuit allowed on his team?

cause he is dirty dirty dirty filthy dirty & it will catch up to him & the rest of his flying monkeys.

I think history will have something to say about this that won't be good.

But I'm more worried about precedents and an awful lot of unchecked power going to the executive. Our government depends on a system of checks and balances and it's being eroded before our eyes.

Not that he SHOULD have been removed from office, after all the other two impeached presidents weren't - but we should have heard from witnesses.

It also relies on those doing the checking to do it honestly not just as partisans.

.

I think that applies to all sides.

Yep, that's why there will be a bipartisan NOT GUILTY VOTE, bet on it.

.

 

[playtime]

Dershowitz would make very short work of that if some idiot prosecutor was dumb enough to try to charge a case like that. They found 3 female DNA samples on the dress. How did they get there?

For all anyone knows she loaned the dress to someone else, ya just never know. That's why no judge would ever issue a warrant for DNA base on that story. 25-30 years is a long time, DNA degrades over time.

.

this is a civil case, not a criminal one. the 'burden' is much lower & there is no beyond a reasonable doubt; only the preponderance of the evidence to be proven.

And? She still has to demonstrate financial harm.

.

nope. you are wrong.

Damages in a Defamation Case

fred goldman brought a wrongful death suit against OJ & won & had nothing to do with a financial hardship could occur because of ron goldman's murder.

HA! uber scum that dershowitz helped defend OJ 'cause the cash was great.

talk about money being the root of all evil.

Money is not the root of all evil.

sure it is when people are driven to do evil things to attain it. selling ones' soul for cash is the epitome of why it is the root cause.

 

[playtime]

No decent judge would ever issue a warrant based on a dress from something that might have happened 30 years ago. There's no provable chain of custody. For any knows the gal paid someone to wear it to a function that Trump might have attended in the last year. There's no way to prove when a skin cell could have been obtained. You're rooting for the gal because you hate Trump, but use your damn brain, the gal has no case.

.

Dershowitz would make very short work of that if some idiot prosecutor was dumb enough to try to charge a case like that. They found 3 female DNA samples on the dress. How did they get there?

you either didn't bother to read the article or failed at comprehending it b4 replying.

it didn't say any of the samples were definitively female. it said of the four not eliminated
( others that were eliminated were the photo shoot people ) the lab report only said that one was definitively male. the other 3 didn't specify one way or the other.

She wore this dress to a photo-shoot AFTER the alleged assault? How did she get there? Walk down a crowded street, ride the bus, get into a cab that had transported how many people since the last time it was sanitized?

are you really that dumb or are you playing full tilt retard?

Name calling doesn't deal with these questions.

neither does your lack of comprehension skills.

 

[playtime]

Like any American voter gives a damn if Ukraine investigates someone. The whole thing was a pathetic attempt to overturn a past election and strip the sitting President off the ballot in this election.

You don't get it. Trump trying to get Ukraine to investigate Biden wasn't because any American voters would care about the results. But ANY investigation would make Biden look bad, and give Trump a better chance of being re-elected. And no, the "whole thing" (I assume you mean impeachment) wasn't about overturning the last election. It was about a President abusing the power of his office in an attempt to ensure his re-election, which is what happened. But you know what? People that hate Trump vote, too.

all donny was interested in was the 'announcement' on CNN by zelinsky.

Oh, so you are mind-reading Trump again declaring his thoughts to be horrid, why, even so ghastly that he should be removed from office! Weird how that didn't sell to the Juryl

So, give me a link to this Fake News CNN announcement you are rambling on about.

not fake.

fact:

Trump Pressed Ukraine’s President to Act Out a Fake News Script, Live on CNN
Robert Mackey
October 23 2019, 8:05 p.m.
Before agreeing to release nearly $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine, President Donald Trump extorted a promise from his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to appear on American television and act out a script prepared for him by Trump’s aides, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, told the House impeachment inquiry [ * ] on Tuesday.

The scene a desperate Zelensky finally agreed to perform would have been the very definition of fake news: a dramatic announcement by the Ukrainian president, during a CNN interview, that he was opening criminal investigations on Joe Biden’s family and other Democrats.

The plot, which would have duped American voters into believing that there was some substance to a debunked conspiracy theory about Biden’s work in Ukraine as vice president, came very close to working.
Trump Wanted Ukraine’s President to Smear Biden on CNN

* pages 11 & 12 of ambassador's testimony under oath:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...ement/71cb2f887efc7eb76629/optimized/full.pdf




yer welcome for the education.

Did you read your link? It describes second hand, what Sondland told Taylor. Why in the hell, when they have Sondlands first hand testimony are your directing me to what someone else said, Sondland said he heard? This is the kind of silliness that we saw throughout this farce.

Secondly - This is NOT

"Before agreeing to release nearly $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine, President Donald Trump extorted a promise from his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to appear on American television and act out a script prepared for him by Trump’s aides, "

even claimed on pages 11 and 12 of your link, and this never even occurred. You do know that the aid was released with so such announcement? Apparently Sondland incorrectly inferred that the aid would be withheld without an investigation and and reported this to Taylor.

First - There is nothing wrong with insisting that concrete steps be taken to deal with rampant corruption before releasing US taxpayer funds to a foreign nation. Our aid is not an entitlement.

Secondly, Vondman's inference is clearly wrong as the aid was released without this announcement.

Thirdly, why the hell am I hearing about what Vondman inferred from Taylor when Vondman was deposed?

Fourthly, why in the hell are you guys trying to overturn a past election and change a future election, based on an incorrect inference by one guy, reported by another guy, when even if correct is neither a crime nor even unreasonable?

You're welcome for the education.

' Did you read your link? It describes second hand, what Sondland told Taylor. Why in the hell, when they have Sondlands first hand testimony are your directing me to what someone else said, Sondland said he heard? This is the kind of silliness that we saw throughout this farce.'

i couldn't find a video clip short enough. but alrighty then, will this do?

In addition to directly alleging a quid pro quo that was well-known within the administration, Sondland’s testimony undercut Trump’s claims in another, quieter way. At several points in his testimony, he suggested it was only the announcement of investigations that was a priority for the White House.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) asked Sondland at one point to clarify the outline of the quid pro quo.

“He had to get those two investigations if that official act was going to take place,” Schiff said.

“Correct,” Sondland replied. “He had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.”

Later, Daniel Goldman, counsel for the House Democrats, pressed Sondland on the point.

“You understood that in order to get that White House meeting that you wanted President Zelensky to have and that President Zelensky desperately wanted to have,” Goldman said, “that Ukraine would have to initiate these two investigations. Is that right?”

“Well, they would have to announce that they were going to do it,” Sondland replied.

“Right, because they — because Giuliani and President Trump didn’t actually care if they did them, right?” Goldman asked.

“I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed,” Sondland said. “The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form. And that form kept changing.”

“Announced publicly?” Goldman asked.

“Announced publicly,” Sondland replied.

“And you, of course, recognized that there would be political benefits to a public announcement as opposed to a private confirmation, right?” Goldman asked.

“Well, the way it was expressed to me was that the Ukrainians had a long history of committing to things privately and then never following through,” Sondland replied. “So President Trump presumably — again, communicated through Mr. Giuliani — wanted the Ukrainians on record publicly that they were going to do these investigations. That’s the reason that was given to me.”

“But you never heard anyone say that they really wanted them to do the investigations,” Goldman said, “just that they wanted them to announce them.”

“I didn’t hear either way,” Sondland replied.

Goldman later pointed to testimony from acting Ukraine ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. in which he recalled Sondland saying that Ukraine needed to be in a “public box.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/other-knife-gordon-sondland-stuck-trumps-back/

' First - There is nothing wrong with insisting that concrete steps be taken to deal with rampant corruption before releasing US taxpayer funds to a foreign nation. Our aid is not an entitlement.'

no there isn't - howeverrrrrrrrrrrrr............ there are strict guidelines to follow once that cash is appropriated & ready to go out the door by the duly elected congress in charge of the purse strings. donny didn't follow that protocol.

' Secondly, Vondman's inference is clearly wrong as the aid was released without this announcement. '

who's 'vondman'? are you talking about sondland? the cash was released because they got caught.

' Thirdly, why the hell am I hearing about what Vondman inferred from Taylor when Vondman was deposed? '

fixed that with the above link i just provided. oh ya.... & there is the little memo that lev parnas provided that corroborates what sondland testified to as far as an announcement. . sondland's docs are being with held by pompeo at donny's direction. why? why is that?

' Fourthly, why in the hell are you guys trying to overturn a past election and change a future election, based on an incorrect inference by one guy, reported by another guy, when even if correct is neither a crime nor even unreasonable? '

well i guess you are wrong about that 'incorrect reference' huh? sorry about deflating what you thought was a slap down.

& it's not about overturning an election. it's about cleansing the office of the presidency by the only means our founders gave 'us' because donny is a mafioso autocrat in the making. he broke the law according to the non partisin GAO & was circumventing the ICA ( impoundment control act ) by not going thru the proper channels/protocol. 90 minutes after that 'perfect' call, donny halted the funds.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?
Oct 23, 2019
Download PDF

What is the Impoundment Control Act?
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress’ power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – “Impoundment Control” – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office.
[...]
What does it mean to ‘impound’ funds?
An “impoundment” is any action – or inaction – by an officer or employee of the federal government that precludes federal funds from being obligated[1] or spent, either temporarily or permanently.

How does the ICA work?
The ICA lays out procedures the President must follow to reduce, delay, or eliminate funding in an account. The Act divides impoundments into two categories: rescissions and deferrals.
[...]
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?

donny loves the poorly educated & counts on y'all to stay that way.

 

[playtime]

they would prove whether donny - who claims to not know her at all - was in close contact with her. i am not saying it was him, but he can be sued & may just hafta give up some DNA. given his track record for the last 4 decades, is it that unreasonable to think he isn't completely innocent?

c'mon...

No decent judge would ever issue a warrant based on a dress from something that might have happened 30 years ago. There's no provable chain of custody. For any knows the gal paid someone to wear it to a function that Trump might have attended in the last year. There's no way to prove when a skin cell could have been obtained. You're rooting for the gal because you hate Trump, but use your damn brain, the gal has no case.

.

lol... for ****'s sake, kitty - show some dignity. she is suing him for defamation & it certainly can be determined if them thar skin cells were recent (like the 3 from the photo shoot) or aged. now - if they were mango colored, you might have a point - but apparently they aren't, so that means they could have been from years ago since donny wasn't the obsessive spray tan cretin back then; & that defamation suit isn't the first one in the pipeline.

summer zervos' lawsuit is still very much active, despite donny's efforts to delay.

Trump gets woman's suit delayed until NY top court weighs in

So how does she claim this classic he said, she said has harmed her? You know she has to demonstrate financial harm to even have standing, right?

.

nice try meow meow but uh - no she doesn't.

Damages in a Defamation Case

& zervos has phone records, so it's a little more like - what she said can be confirmed & what he said was a ******* lie.

Wasn't the gold digger on his TV show?? BTW do you have anything specific to NY?

.

lol - that's a cop out. 'gold digger' ? what a antiquated term. what does NY have anything to do with it? your deflection is duly noted. speaking of 'gold digging' donny likes to marry them & they all make sure to pop out his spawn to keep that cash flowing in their direction.

 

[iceberg]

So I'm assuming you will be fine when a Democrat president withholds aid to other countries and tries to strong arm them into digging up dirt on his political rivals. Am I right?

No, but that is not what Trump did.

Would you be fine the next time the House is majority Republican impeaching a Democrat president without evidence...just hearsay? Careful, Obama was accused of much worse and the Republicans didn't impeach him because they couldn't prove the charges. Democrats don't seem to care about proof.

it is not hearsay. vindman was a first person witness in on that not so perfect call.

why won't donny let his 'men' testify? why wont he cough up any docs? why is he afraid?

& why was cippolone who bolton said was in on the shake down allowed to be counsel for donny? why was pam bondi- who took a cash buy off - to close down donny's university lawsuit allowed on his team?

cause he is dirty dirty dirty filthy dirty & it will catch up to him & the rest of his flying monkeys.

I think history will have something to say about this that won't be good.

But I'm more worried about precedents and an awful lot of unchecked power going to the executive. Our government depends on a system of checks and balances and it's being eroded before our eyes.

Not that he SHOULD have been removed from office, after all the other two impeached presidents weren't - but we should have heard from witnesses.

then why were they not called in proper fashion?
how about the "precedents being set" that involve new ways to get rid of Presidents who WON the election?

history will say the left were rabid maniacs going for anything they could make up in order to get rid of someone vs. building a platform the people actually wanted. they are already saying they will impeach him again - but for what? they've not come up with a "why" yet?

none of what the left has done seems odd to you?

 

[playtime]

Dershowitz would make very short work of that if some idiot prosecutor was dumb enough to try to charge a case like that. They found 3 female DNA samples on the dress. How did they get there?

For all anyone knows she loaned the dress to someone else, ya just never know. That's why no judge would ever issue a warrant for DNA base on that story. 25-30 years is a long time, DNA degrades over time.

.

this is a civil case, not a criminal one. the 'burden' is much lower & there is no beyond a reasonable doubt; only the preponderance of the evidence to be proven.

And? She still has to demonstrate financial harm.

.

nope. you are wrong.

Damages in a Defamation Case

fred goldman brought a wrongful death suit against OJ & won & had nothing to do with a financial hardship could occur because of ron goldman's murder.

HA! uber scum that dershowitz helped defend OJ 'cause the cash was great.

talk about money being the root of all evil.

Wow, another great commie IRRELEVANT DEFLECTION. Good job commie. LAMO

.

no it's not. a civil suit - defamation or otherwise is not contingent on how it could hurt someone financially. lordy, you are trying so hard & falling flat every time.

 

[playtime]

I agree that every defendant should get the best defense possible. Unfortunately, that usually means the best defense that money can buy. I wonder how much pro bono work Dershowitz does? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, too.

Dershowitz said as far as he knew he wasn't being paid by the Trump defense team, but he said if he was, it would go the charity.

.

who paid rudy for all his investigations into ukraine?

What does that have to do with Dershowitz?

.

dershowitz defended donny in a shake down based on conspiracy... & it just all ties in.

And there will still be a bipartisan vote for NOT GUILTY. Chaps your ass doesn't it????????? ROFL

.

what fun when all this starts to come out as the election season goes fwd... how long b4 donny loses HIS shizzle hmmmm?

 

[iceberg]

I don't think any Democrats expected that Trump would be removed from office, this is a political process, not a legal one, and has little to do with guilt or innocence. But I think they hoped to hear from some key witnesses who were prevented from testifying.

they also did NOT want to hear from some "key witnesses" right?

In addition, there were also over eight witnesses that were proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes but were ultimately turned down by Rep. Adam Schiff. Similarly, there were also 8 witnesses called by Rep. Doug Collins that were also subsequently turned down by Rep. Jarrold Nadler.
-----
so apparantly you CAN reject witnesses, as the left did. 16 times. now why, if we want the truth, are we turning down witnesses for the "other" side? is that fair? is that how history expects things to go in a "fair" system?

it was a shitshow people didn't want to participate in meaning some witnesses didn't go. but you simply CAN NOT call ONLY your chosen witnesses and them get the smugface that you're "proper" and "unbiased".

so tell me why the left can say "no" to witnesses then sit n ***** they don't get their witnesses?

 

[playtime]

I don't think any Democrats expected that Trump would be removed from office, this is a political process, not a legal one, and has little to do with guilt or innocence. But I think they hoped to hear from some key witnesses who were prevented from testifying.

they also did NOT want to hear from some "key witnesses" right?

In addition, there were also over eight witnesses that were proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes but were ultimately turned down by Rep. Adam Schiff. Similarly, there were also 8 witnesses called by Rep. Doug Collins that were also subsequently turned down by Rep. Jarrold Nadler.
-----
so apparantly you CAN reject witnesses, as the left did. 16 times. now why, if we want the truth, are we turning down witnesses for the "other" side? is that fair? is that how history expects things to go in a "fair" system?

it was a shitshow people didn't want to participate in meaning some witnesses didn't go. but you simply CAN NOT call ONLY your chosen witnesses and them get the smugface that you're "proper" and "unbiased".

so tell me why the left can say "no" to witnesses then sit n ***** they don't get their witnesses?

they turned down irrelevant witness'. the inquiry was about donny et al with holding funds already approved & ready to go out the door in exchange for 'dirt' or perceived 'dirt' on a political rival. in a court of law - only witness' & evidence is allowed that directly is tied to the accused.

why did the (R)s vote down the amendment that would have allowed the chief justice to decide who was actually a relevant witness? the (D)s were willing to go with whatever roberts said, even if that meant hunter biden or anybody else that the (R)s wanted to testify? because they knew that roberts would have decided that their witness' were bogus & this way, they can keep up the charade that somehow it mattered in the case of donny the mafioso wanna be.

 

[iceberg]

I don't think any Democrats expected that Trump would be removed from office, this is a political process, not a legal one, and has little to do with guilt or innocence. But I think they hoped to hear from some key witnesses who were prevented from testifying.

they also did NOT want to hear from some "key witnesses" right?

In addition, there were also over eight witnesses that were proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes but were ultimately turned down by Rep. Adam Schiff. Similarly, there were also 8 witnesses called by Rep. Doug Collins that were also subsequently turned down by Rep. Jarrold Nadler.
-----
so apparantly you CAN reject witnesses, as the left did. 16 times. now why, if we want the truth, are we turning down witnesses for the "other" side? is that fair? is that how history expects things to go in a "fair" system?

it was a shitshow people didn't want to participate in meaning some witnesses didn't go. but you simply CAN NOT call ONLY your chosen witnesses and them get the smugface that you're "proper" and "unbiased".

so tell me why the left can say "no" to witnesses then sit n ***** they don't get their witnesses?

they turned down irrelevant witness'. the inquiry was about donny et al with holding funds already approved & ready to go out the door in exchange for 'dirt' or perceived 'dirt' on a political rival. in a court of law - only witness' & evidence is allowed that directly is tied to the accused.

why did the (R)s vote down the amendment that would have allowed the chief justice to decide who was actually a relevant witness? the (D)s were willing to go with whatever roberts said, even if that meant hunter biden or anybody else that the (R)s wanted to testify? because they knew that roberts would have decided that their witness' were bogus & this way, they can keep up the charade that somehow it mattered in the case of donny the mafioso wanna be.

who determines their relevance?

now if you are claiming this can be done and part of the process and providing zero guidelines for doing this - then fine. **** off cause the right did the same. said the witnesses were "irrelevant" so what's the problem?

well other than having to follow your own rules.